2010 General Election: The Cable Forum Exit Poll

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I get all that, but how does it fit into 650 constituencies? If electing 5 ministers to each constituency you'd need to reduce that to 130 constituencies so there'd need to be some allocation to individual areas in the constituency or a bit of a loss of identity of your representative.

Just a small concern.

It doesn't fit into 650 constituencies. The only way it works is with a smaller number of larger constituencies represented by more than one elected member. This is what has happened in Scottish councils. There are fewer wards, but 3-4 councillors per ward.

The means by which you shuffle the votes around to achieve the 'transferable' aspect of STV, and how it ultimately results in broadly proportional representation, is frighteningly complex, but if you want to know exactly how it works, you can read up on it with the PDF available here:

http://www.votescotland.com/stv/file...nVS19Apr07.pdf

You are concerned about the impact on local representation ... fair enough, but I'm not convinced that that argument trumps the obscenity of a party getting 9% of the seats from 23% of the votes, which is the position the Lib Dems are in right now. Why should so many people not have their voices adequately heard in Parliament?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

You are concerned about the impact on local representation ... fair enough, but I'm not convinced that that argument trumps the obscenity of a party getting 9% of the seats from 23% of the votes, which is the position the Lib Dems are in right now. Why should so many people not have their voices adequately heard in Parliament?

So what happened to the argument about a voting system that is more proportional resulting in weak and ineffective government? I'm not saying that you've pushed that argument, but I'm a bit surprised at the apparent support for a proportional system. Are people now convinced that consensus and co-operation is the future of UK politics?

I have to say though that I really like the idea of a system that is proportional whilst retaining local inks.

Originally Posted by danielf

So what happened to the argument about a voting system that is more proportional resulting in weak and ineffective government? I'm not saying that you've pushed that argument, but I'm a bit surprised at the apparent support for a proportional system. Are people now convinced that consensus and co-operation is the future of UK politics?

I have to say though that I really like the idea of a system that is proportional whilst retaining local inks.

extrapolating that, could we have a system where electing a local candidate would enable them to vote freely, exclusive of a 'party whip' ???

[Charlie_Bubble]

Originally Posted by Damien

Well Germany has managed a strong economy with a system of proportional representation, quite a few of the G20 have some form of collation governments. It is incorrect to suggest such systems led to weak economies.

Oh dear, look what just happened in Germany:

Merkel's national coalition loses its slim majority in the upper house of parliament, the Bundesrat

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Charlie_Bubble

Oh dear, look what just happened in Germany:

Merkel's national coalition loses its slim majority in the upper house of parliament, the Bundesrat

At least they have an elected upper chamber, compared to the joke we have here. I also note that the Beeb article doesn't talk of impending doom for Germany as its weak, ineffectual Government now faces further handicaps.

[nomadking]

It's only one regional election, but it matters because defeat in North Rhine Westphalia deprives Chancellor Angela Merkel of a majority in the upper house of the German parliament. And without that, she'll find it much harder to push through the national legislation she wants.

A new coalition in NRW would jeopardise long-promised tax cuts and health system reforms at national level, as Bundesrat members are directly appointed by the state governments.

Local councils in NRW are sinking into debt, with leading to rising kindergarten fees and the threatened closure of libraries, swimming-pools and theatres.

But it's not just Greece. Ever since they took power nationally, Chancellor Merkel's coalition of Christian Democrats and Free Democrats haven't stopped squabbling - over everything from body scanners at airports to budget deficits. And the more they've bickered, the more unpopular they've become.

Does anything actually get done in a PR government with an elected second chamber that the majority voted for?

[Xaccers]

You don't remember Germany after reunification then?

Would a BNP/Monster Raving Loony/Citizens for Undead Rights and Equality MP be a benifit to the nation or a waste of £65K a year?

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Would a BNP/Monster Raving Loony/Citizens for Undead Rights and Equality MP be a benifit to the nation or a waste of £65K a year?

A waste.

But would they get in in the 1st place?

The BNP only polled 1.9% nationally, with 563,743 votes. Other fringe parties even less so.


If, however, they did get in past whatever vote threshold was set, & showed themselves to be a waste, would they get voted in the next time?

Originally Posted by danielf

So what happened to the argument about a voting system that is more proportional resulting in weak and ineffective government? I'm not saying that you've pushed that argument, but I'm a bit surprised at the apparent support for a proportional system. Are people now convinced that consensus and co-operation is the future of UK politics?

'Weak and ineffective government' is a self-serving argument offered by those who think that only they can provide strong and effective government. They usually follow it up by giving Italy as an example (almost as many governments as there have been years since 1945), whilst conveniently ignoring Germany, at the opposite end of the scale, which does ok for itself despite having an almost rabid obsession with federalism and consensus in its national and regional politics.

Coalitions have historically failed to last very long in the UK, but in the UK all parties know that they have a fighting chance of getting an outright majority if a coalition fails and an election is called. Hence there is no incentive to stick with it.

I have no desire to see fringe loons holding the country to ransom but the fact is, the British electorate has fragmented and opted to support a wider range of parties despite the fact that the electoral system can't deliver on their choices. In my view, there simply isn't an argument to be had any more. The electorate has already demonstrated that it is no longer interested in the two-party system.

I think Cameron is canny enough to recognise this (and to recognise that there is going to be a referendum on PR if Clegg gets into bed with Labour instead of with him) and genuinely wants to grasp the nettle and at least see if he can devise a PR system that won't excessively disadvantage his party. His problem is that there are too many old dinosaurs on his back benches who still believe it's only a matter of time before they can win outright power again, and then everything will be as it was in 1983.

I have to say though that I really like the idea of a system that is proportional whilst retaining local inks.

Either AV+ or FPTP with a top-up list would provide the local MP link you want to retain, however in my view those systems make it too difficult to get rid of personally unpopular MPs, because they can get in on the regional list if they fail to win in a constituency. Making the regional list open (i.e. you see all the names listed for each party, and X one of them, rather than simply X-ing the party) would solve the problem, but it creates another - absolutely massive ballot papers.

[NoKnowledge]

For local council elections, I prefer the alternative vote

For the general election, I prefer the closed party list.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Matt D

A waste.

But would they get in in the 1st place?

The BNP only polled 1.9% nationally, with 563,743 votes. Other fringe parties even less so.


If, however, they did get in past whatever vote threshold was set, & showed themselves to be a waste, would they get voted in the next time?

Several uBNP councillors have been re-elected.
They managed to get two MEPs thanks to PR, chances are, thanks to PR they'll keep their jobs.

[punky]

Anyone else find it a bit odd Vince Cable isn't part of the talks? He was by his side throuought the entire campaign and (appeared, at least) to be Clegg's closest and most respect confident. Much the same way as Hague was for Cameron or the Dark Lord for Brown. Yet he has no role to play in the biggest event in the Lib Dem's history for 70 years?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

'Weak and ineffective government' is a self-serving argument offered by those who think that only they can provide strong and effective government. They usually follow it up by giving Italy as an example (almost as many governments as there have been years since 1945), whilst conveniently ignoring Germany, at the opposite end of the scale, which does ok for itself despite having an almost rabid obsession with federalism and consensus in its national and regional politics.

Coalitions have historically failed to last very long in the UK, but in the UK all parties know that they have a fighting chance of getting an outright majority if a coalition fails and an election is called. Hence there is no incentive to stick with it.

Thanks for that. I couldn't have put it better myself. Having lived under PR for most of my life I never understood the weak government argument myself. In fact, I find the idea of one party holding absolute power to push through legislation that the electorate was never consulted on quite scary. Coalition governments ensure that there is a proper cross-party debate on such issues, which is a good thing in my opinion.

I have no desire to see fringe loons holding the country to ransom but the fact is, the British electorate has fragmented and opted to support a wider range of parties despite the fact that the electoral system can't deliver on their choices. In my view, there simply isn't an argument to be had any more. The electorate has already demonstrated that it is no longer interested in the two-party system.

I think Cameron is canny enough to recognise this (and to recognise that there is going to be a referendum on PR if Clegg gets into bed with Labour instead of with him) and genuinely wants to grasp the nettle and at least see if he can devise a PR system that won't excessively disadvantage his party. His problem is that there are too many old dinosaurs on his back benches who still believe it's only a matter of time before they can win outright power again, and then everything will be as it was in 1983.

It'll be interesting to see what happens. Personally I'm not holding my breath (yet), but I find the idea that you are positive about it promising.

Either AV+ or FPTP with a top-up list would provide the local MP link you want to retain, however in my view those systems make it too difficult to get rid of personally unpopular MPs, because they can get in on the regional list if they fail to win in a constituency. Making the regional list open (i.e. you see all the names listed for each party, and X one of them, rather than simply X-ing the party) would solve the problem, but it creates another - absolutely massive ballot papers.

I don't think massive ballot papers are a problem. I've voted on A1 size ballot papers. It's only a problem if you've got very short arms.

It'll be interesting to see what (if anything) will change. As said, I really like the idea of having a proportional system with local links and the ability to get rid of unpopular people. Best of both worlds if you ask me.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by danielf

Thanks for that. I couldn't have put it better myself. Having lived under PR for most of my life I never understood the weak government argument myself. In fact, I find the idea of one party holding absolute power to push through legislation that the electorate was never consulted on quite scary. Coalition governments ensure that there is a proper cross-party debate on such issues, which is a good thing in my opinion.

Indeed, I've never lived under PR, but I have lived through a situation where thanks to our current system, we were by a party who had effectively unchallenged control despite most of the southern half of the country not voting for them. As such they could get through a lot of their bills with little or no resistance.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Several uBNP councillors have been re-elected.
They managed to get two MEPs thanks to PR, chances are, thanks to PR they'll keep their jobs.

No, they managed to get two MEPs because sufficient people voted for them. This is what we call 'democracy'. I'm disturbed by the implication that you think it acceptable to choose an electoral system that is designed to lock out people you disagree with.